Sri. Neelappa S/O Lalappa Lamani vs The Assistant Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 3497 Kant

                                1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI


               MSA No.200056/2015 (LA)

Between:

Sri Neelappa S/o Lalappa Lamani,
Age about 50 Years,
Occ: Coolie/Agriculture,
R/o Kolur Tanda, Tq: Muddebihal,
Dist.Vijayapur-586 201.
                                                  ... Appellant

(By Sri Sanganabasava.B.Patil, Advocate)

And:

The Assistant Commissioner
And Land Acquisition Officer,
Vijayapur-586 101.
                                              ... Respondent
(By Smt. Maya. T.R., HCGP)

       This Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed under
Section 54(2) of the Land Acquisition Act praying to call for
the records and set aside the judgment of the First
Appellate    dated   25.04.2015     passed   in   LAC   Appeal
No.26/2013 by the III Addl. Dist. Judge, Vijayapur.        And
                              2




also the judgment and award passed by the Hon'ble Civil
Judge (Sr.Dn.) Muddebihal dated 29.11.2003 in LAC
No.135/2001 and enhance the compensation amount by
determining the market value as Rs.1,05,000/- as awarded
to the irrigated land.


      This appeal coming on for hearing, this day, the
Court delivered the following:-

                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed under Section 54(2) of the

Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Act'), challenging the judgment and award dated

25.04.2015 passed in LAC Appeal No.26/2013 before

the III Additional District Judge, Vijayapura and also

judgment and award passed by the Senior Civil Judge,

Muddebihal dated 29.11.2003 passed in LAC

No.135/2001 seeking for enhancement of

compensation.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are as under:

3. The appellant was the owner in possession

of land bearing Resurvey No.39/2 of Muddanal village,

Tq. Muddebihal, Dist.Vijayapura. The respondent

acquired the land to the extent of 1 acre 6 guntas for

the purpose of construction of left bank canal from

Almatti reservoir by issuing preliminary notification

under Section 4(1) of the Act and award came to be

passed by the Respondent on 10.07.2001 and

determined the market value of the land at `35,330/-

per acre. The appellant being dissatisfied with the

compensation determined by respondent, filed an

application under Section 18(1) of the Act.

Respondent referred the matter to the Reference

Court. The Reference Court has registered the same in

LAC No.135/2001. In the Reference application, the

appellant contended that the compensation awarded

by respondent was meager and prayed to enhance the

compensation. The reference Court after recording the

evidence of appellant re-determined the compensation

at `48,000/- per acre as against `35,330/- awarded

by the first respondent. The appellant, being

dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the

Reference Court, filed an appeal in LACA No.26/2013.

The appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material

on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant

and also the learned High Court Government pleader

for respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant

submits that the land acquired by the respondent is

an irrigated land. The reference Court ought to have

considered the land under reference as irrigated land,

on the contrary has treated the land as dry land and

awarded lesser compensation. He further submits that

the Appellate Court has committed an error in

determining the lesser compensation. He submits

that the impugned judgment is arbitrary and

capricious and hence, on these grounds he prays to

allow the appeal.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader for the respondent submits that the appellant

has not produced any material before the reference

Court to establish that the land under acquisition is an

irrigated land. She further submits that the reference

Court after considering the material on record was

justified in recording a finding that the land under

acquisition is a dry land and further the appellate

Court on re-appreciation of material on record was

justified in confirming the judgment and award passed

by the reference Court. Hence, she submits that the

judgment and award passed by the reference Court is

just and proper and does not call for interference.

Hence, on these grounds prays to dismiss the appeal.

6. Heard and perused the records and

considered the submissions of the learned counsel for

the parties.

7. It is not in dispute that the land of the

appellant was acquired for the purpose of construction

of tank of left bank canal from Almatti reservior. The

first respondent has issued preliminary notification on

14.01.2000 and the respondent passed an award

determining compensation at `35,330/- per acre. The

appellant being dissatisfied with the compensation

determined by the respondent filed an application

under Section 18(1) of the Act. The first respondent

referred the matter to the reference Court. Before the

reference Court the appellant was examined as P.W.1

and got marked two documents as Ex.P1 and P2. On

considering Ex.D1 i.e., copy of award, the reference

Court after appreciating the material on record has

enhanced the compensation amount from `35,330/-

to `48,000/- per acre considering the land as dry land.

From the perusal of the reference Court records, the

claimant except oral evidence has not produced any

other evidence to establish that the land under

acquisition is an irrigated land. The respondent has

awarded compensation of `35,330/- per acre for dry

land vide award dated 10.07.2001. On the contrary,

the respondent has produced the copy of award. From

the perusal of copy of award passed by the Special

Land Acquisition Officer, it is evident that the land

under acquisition is a dry land and not an irrigated

land. The reference Court after considering the

material on record, has determined the market value

at `48,000/-. In the absence of document, the Court

cannot hold that the land under acquisition is an

irrigated land. The appellate Court after re-

appreciation of the material on record was justified in

dismissing the appeal. Hence, I do not find any

ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and

award passed by the Court below. Accordingly, appeal

is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VNR